Jobsinlaw.ca is Canada’s go-to legal career site. By matching employers and recruiters with legal professionals, www.jobsinlaw.ca provides a cost-effective recruitment solution. Law firms, in-house legal departments and public sector organizations across Canada can find lawyers, legal professionals or legal support staff at all levels of qualification with jobsinlaw.ca.

The Lexpert CCCA Corporate Counsel Directory & Yearbook is a joint endeavour of the Canadian Corporate Counsel Association and Lexpert. It provides the most extensive listing of corporate counsel in Canada.

Whether your matter is to do with criminal, family, employment, property, or immigration law, FindLaw.ca’s Lawyer Directory will help you connect with the right lawyers to help you with your legal issues.

The Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory comprises the results of an extensive peer survey. This comprehensive guide to legal talent in Canada identifies both leading lawyers and law firms from across the country.

Innovatio Awards celebrate in-house counsel, both individuals and teams, who have found ways to show leadership by becoming more efficient, innovative and creative in meeting the needs of their organizations within the Canadian legal markets

Presented by Lexpert, the prestigious Rising Stars Awards Gala honours winners from across Canada and welcomes law firm and in-house leaders and distinguished guests to celebrate and network with others who are at the top of the legal profession

The Canadian Dealmakers honour companies and individuals whose M&A transactions have significantly impacted their industry through innovation and growth; establishment of best practices; enhancement of customer needs and products; and creation of value

The Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory comprises the results of an extensive peer survey. This comprehensive guide to legal talent in Canada identifies both leading lawyers and law firms from across the country.

The Lexpert CCCA Corporate Counsel Directory & Yearbook is a joint endeavour of the Canadian Corporate Counsel Association and Lexpert. It provides the most extensive listing of corporate counsel in Canada.

Consumers get SCC boost

Price-fixing class actions ‘open for business’

November 4, 2013|Written By Julius Melnitzer

In a landmark trilogy released on Thursday, the Supreme Court of Canada has declared open season for consumers who wish to use class actions to recover overpayments for products or services that have been the subject of price-fixing conspiracies.

‘Despite recognizing that there were complicated issues of multiple and double recovery in allowing indirect purchaser claims to proceed, the SCC clearly believed that trial judges would be able to sort these things out,’ says Adam Fanaki. Photo: Couvrette/Ottawa

“Price-fixing class actions are open for business in Canada,” says J.J. Camp of Vancouver’s Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman, who represented the class in Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp., one of the three cases decided by the Supreme Court.

“If the Court had excluded consumers, dozens of these types of cases would have been shut down, unjustly precluding consumers from recovering their losses against the wrongdoers and requiring them to disgorge their ill-gotten gains.”

More particularly, the court ruled plaintiffs’ lawyers could lump direct and indirect purchasers into the same class action.

“The entire structure of class actions in Canada has tended to be based on the one big happy family approach where direct and indirect purchasers sue in the same proceedings, and the court has basically validated that approach.”

The court unanimously certified the indirect purchaser classes in Pro-Sys and Infineon, but in a split decision, it rejected certification for both direct and indirect purchasers in Sun-Rype. The rejection of the indirect purchasers stemmed from the plaintiffs’ inability to offer any evidence showing that at least two individuals (two being the minimum number for a class) could self-identify by proving they had purchased a product that actually contained the impugned syrup, something often not included on product labels.

In all three cases, however, the court rejected the 1977 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, a case that has served to bar indirect purchaser claims in federal courts for more than three decades.

“Despite recognizing that there were complicated issues of multiple and double recovery in allowing indirect purchaser claims to proceed, the SCC clearly believed that trial judges would be able to sort these things out,” says Adam Fanaki, a class action defence lawyer with Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP’s Toronto office who appeared on behalf of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce as an intervener in Sun-Rype.

Just as significantly, the top court confirmed, as it had 10 years earlier when it first considered the question, that a relatively low evidentiary standard is necessary for certification of price-fixing class actions in common law provinces with an even lower one in Quebec.

“It’s clear that the Supreme Court does not see the certification process as a robust gatekeeping function,” says Fanaki’s colleague Mark Katz.

It was not, the top court ruled, the certifying court’s place to resolve conflicting facts or evidentiary issues. Rather, where loss issues arose, a plaintiff only had to make out a “credible” or “plausible” methodology that would allow a court to try the case on a class-wide basis.

In a price-fixing case, the methodology had to offer a “realistic prospect” — one grounded in the facts of the case and based on “some evidence” that appropriate data was available — for establishing loss on a class-wide basis to ensure that the plaintiffs could demonstrate at trial that any proven losses were common to the class.

In Quebec, however, the civil code imposed a lower standard of certification. Expert evidence was, therefore, “not the norm” at the certification stage and the plaintiffs had only to demonstrate an “arguable case that an injury was suffered.”

Canada’s acceptance of indirect purchaser classes and its lower evidentiary standard for certification raise the prospect that competition class actions that can’t be certified in the United States will come to this country and succeed here.

However that may be, Naudie says the trilogy isn’t bereft of “silver linings for defendants.” In particular, he points to the court’s refusal to certify the indirect class in Sun-Rype.

“The significance of this ruling can’t be underestimated because it reiterates that, whatever the standard for certification, plaintiffs must at least adduce persuasive evidence to meet the requirement that a class of two or more does in fact exist,” he says.

“So many class actions these days, like those about computer components or auto parts, involve a part of a part, where it can be hard to show that the defective product actually existed in an individual consumer’s purchase or that it was produced by a particular defendant.”

RELATED ARTICLES

A Court of Appeal judge may have dealt a fatal blow to the attempts of Ecuadorian villagers to collect a $9.5-billion judgment against Chevron from an Ontario subsidiary. Justice Gloria Epstein has ordered the plaintiffs to post more than $900,000 in security for costs to Chevron Corporation and its seventh-level subsidiary based in Ontario, Chevron Canada Limited.

Proposed changes to private incorporation tax rules could have costly consequences for corporate clients, say lawyers who have reviewed potential shifts to the Income Tax Act.
The federal Liberal government has been at the centre of ongoing controversy over the proposed changes, which were announced this summer and could go into effect later this fall.

Law Times Poll

It's unknown how widely police in Ontario utilize controversial surveillance techniques that can capture private data from non-targets in criminal investigations. Do you think there should be formal requirements to release this information?

Yes, this information should be released.

No, this would put public safety and ongoing police investigations at risk.